This source evaluation worksheet compares three fictional sources against one research question. Write the claim you need to support before judging which source fits. A source can be useful for a past event while failing to answer a question about this year's opening time.
Start with a question that sets the scope
The original practice question is:
What opening time should a visitor use for the 2026 Makers Fair?
The example supplies these clearly fictional source excerpts:
| Source | Publication context | Supplied claim |
|---|---|---|
| A | Organizer schedule dated 2026-10-01. | The 2026 fair opens at 10:00. |
| B | Local visitor blog dated 2025-09-20, describing the 2025 fair. | The 2025 fair opened at 09:00. |
| C | Undated vendor flyer with no event year or organizer confirmation. | “Come early for 9am offers.” |
The Chico State library's source-evaluation worksheet considers currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, and purpose. It notes that the importance of those considerations depends on the research need. This fair comparison and the worksheet entries below are original examples.
Record the source facts before making a decision
Select A, B, or C to inspect the same fields:
| Worksheet field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Question and proposed claim | The exact question, year, population, or other scope the claim concerns. |
| Author or publisher | Who produced the source and what connection they have to the subject. |
| Date and covered period | When it was published or updated, and which event or period it describes. |
| Exact relevant excerpt | The words you are relying on, with a reference back to the source. |
| Evidence and provenance | Where the claim comes from and what supports it. |
| Purpose | What the source is trying to do, such as publish a schedule, describe an experience, or advertise an offer. |
| Fit and next check | What you can use it for, what remains uncertain, and what to investigate next. |
Keep a missing fact visible. An undated flyer does not acquire a current year because it appears beside current search results. Likewise, a domain suffix does not establish that the author knows the event's opening time.
Write a decision specific to the question
The worked decisions stay close to the supplied excerpts:
| Source | Bounded use decision |
|---|---|
| A | Supports the organizer's published 2026 opening time of 10:00 within this fictional record. Check for a later update before using a real event schedule. |
| B | Supports a visitor's account of the 2025 opening time. It does not establish the 2026 time. |
| C | Supports that a vendor advertised offers at 9am. It does not establish the fair's opening time or event year. |
Source A fits the current practice question because its stated year and subject match. Its publisher context also matters: it presents the organizer's schedule. For a real event, you would still need to establish that you had the authentic current schedule.
Source C's promotional purpose helps explain why “9am offers” and “event opening” should not be treated as interchangeable claims. The issue is the statement's scope, not a rule that promotional material is always false.
Change the question and reconsider the fit
Choose the example's historical question about the 2025 fair. Source B now has a different use: it can support a statement about what the visitor reported for that year.
This is why “oldest source is false” is a poor conclusion. Age can make a source unsuitable for a current-time question without making its historical account false.
When you change the proposed claim, the example clears the old review decision until you reconsider it. That prevents a verdict written for the 2026 question from appearing to apply to the 2025 one.
Assemble a review note someone can follow
The blank worksheet asks for a question, source context, exact excerpt, and evidence note before building a local review copy. A useful note could read:
Use Source B for the visitor's reported 2025 opening time. Do not use it to state the 2026 opening time. Next check: the current organizer schedule and any updates.
Another reader can see the intended use and the remaining check. “Reliable” alone would leave both unclear.
Make a worksheet for your own sources
Create one complete, self-contained HTML source evaluation worksheet.
Research question with date and scope: [PASTE]
Exact proposed claim: [PASTE]
Permitted source excerpts with IDs: [PASTE]
Author/publisher and relevant provenance for each: [PASTE]
Publication/update date and covered period for each: [PASTE]
Evidence, purpose, and known missing context: [PASTE]
Show each source beside its context, exact excerpt, question fit, and
next check. Keep source facts separate from the reviewer's judgment.
Do not invent dates, credentials, updates, corroboration, or live checks.
Label any teaching excerpts fictional.
Let a reader change the question or proposed claim and compare source
fit. Clear or mark the previous use decision stale until reconsidered.
Show why an older source may fit a historical question while failing
to answer a current one. Do not generate credibility percentages or
declare a source reliable solely from its domain suffix.
Include a blank worksheet. Require question, source context, excerpt,
and evidence note before assembling a local review text. Allow Use for
this claim, Investigate further, or Does not support this claim with a
reason. Do not automatically fact-check arbitrary sources.
Preserve typed notes when switching sources and ask before resetting.
Keep input local to the open page with no claims of saved research.
Use text of at least 16px, labeled keyboard-accessible controls, and
a layout readable at 360px without horizontal scrolling. Put CSS and
JavaScript inline with no external dependencies. Return complete HTML.
Put the limited claim into your notes
Before drafting your answer, read the proposed sentence beside the excerpt. Check the year, event, and meaning of the time. If the sentence says more than the source does, narrow it or find the missing evidence.
When your evaluation worksheet is an HTML page in NOS, you can sharpen its opening instruction without changing the source excerpts. Ask readers to match the claim's event and year before judging a source's usefulness. Keep Source B as a visitor's account of 2025, with the 2026 schedule still to check.